Isn't it interesting that ultima NEVER replies to the authoritative decrees from gbcdoj?
Never. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and your interpretation of the citation you cited is NOT more authoritative than the Pope's encyclical that GBCDOJ cited, nor Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.
Ultima, nor anyone else for that matter, EVER responds to G's authoritative citations, always from TRADITIONAL sources as well. Nearly everyone else just repeats "ad nauseum" the SSPX propaganda.
What "authoritative decrees"? What could have been more authoritative than Canon Law itself which provided the Archbishop with protection by means of canon 1323, the canon on the state of necessity? Even more, what could have been more authoritative than the Divine Law on which that canon is based and which demands that the innocent not be punished if no malice or evil was ever intended? It is gbcdoj who never responds logically to this argument, not I.
In fact, neither he nor yourself can deal with the truth of the actual situation--nor explain why the Archbishop's evocation of this canon was illegitimate under the circumstance. Did he not truly believe there was a state of emergency in the Church? Was there not truly such a crisis in the Church? No one back then who was aware of the ecclesiastical debacle that had accumulated since the close of the Council could have doubted the Archbishop's sincere evocation of this canon, given the present state of the Church.
It was the Pope in fact who ignored his own canon which provided this defense, condemning the Archbishop's action in a decree that contradicted his own Canon Law in the process--though it was his own unwillingness to remove Catholic Tradition from under the gun that precipitated the Archbishop's consecrations, not any sudden schismatic desire to reject the papacy itself--on the surface something highly implausible. This claim of schism was patently bogus. But John Paul couldn't bring himself to accept that it was bogus--because to do so would have meant entertaining the possibility that his own policies, not anything the Archbishop said or did, had been destructive to the faith.